Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2100

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A2100[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current article does not contain any proper secondary sources, thus there is no salvageable content to keep that passes WP:V and No Original Research. Unless someone takes an interest in starting a properly-sourced page. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, Deletion is not cleanup. --W. D. Graham 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this is "clearly notable", but I'm not sure how to vote on this. A simple google search provides dozens of "articles" on it, which I put in scare quotes, because they're all basically reprints of the same press release from Lockheed Martin. Is there significant coverage beyond the propagation of these press releases? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I added a second reference. It's got enough notability to pass the GNG. Unfortunately, both reliable sources require subscriptions, but I have access to them both, and I can confirm they back up the statements that are using them as sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Lockheed Martin A2100 satellite to clarify article subject. Livitup's sources appear to be good and now the subject can be said to meet GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.